Judge orders new murder trial

Press, 5 December 1985, Page 72

Judge orders new murder trial

PA Wellington An application on behalf of seven accused under Section 347 of the Crimes Act for the dismissal of a charge of the murder of John Edward Pearson on February 9 at Runanga, Waipapa, “or elsewhere in New Zealand” has failed.

After submissions had been made by counsel in support of the application in the High Court at Wellington, Mr Justice Eichelbaum said the order for a new trial would stand. Before the Court for sentence were Tony Sivai Fiso, aged 18, unemployed; Peter Tukiterangi Clarke, 40, contractor, Thomas Ellis Clarke, 21, driver, Allan Dulles Gray, 27, scrubcutter; Moke Uru Houpapa, 30, pipe fitter, Stephen Ngarongo Houpapa, 30, shearer; and Benjamin John Pekepo, 27, farm worker. Mr Justice Eichelbaum

said that at their trial, six of the accused before the Court were found guilty on a charge of injuring with intent and two counts of kidnapping. The seventh accused, Stephen Houpapa, was found guilty on the first of those counts only. His Honour said that in all seven cases, the jury was unable to agree on the murder count which was also faced by each accused. “In relation to that count, the other charges, though in themselves of course serious, are of a less major nature,” he said. “On the murder charge, there is outstanding an application for dismissal on that charge under Section 347 of the Crimes Act which is to be heard later today.” His Honour said that if that application failed, then, as already ordered, there would be a new trial on the murder charge at the earli-

est date that could be arranged. “Counsel have submitted to me this morning that while that murder count is pending it is undesirable that the accused should be sentenced on the remaining charges,” he said. “The accused themselves, I was informed, are not unanimous on the question; but in the submissions that were made to me this morning, there was a strong majority view in favour of a deferment.” His Honour said that, put shortly, there was a risk that if sentencing proceeded at that stage, it would involve the making in public of submissions and remarks which would need to be made for sentencing to be done in accordance with the law, but which in the result could be prejudicial to the fairness of the trial to be heard on the murder count. In addition, there were difficulties about imposing a proper sentence on some counts before all counts had been disposed of, his Honour said. “I will shortly hear the application for the dismissal of the murder charge,” he said. “If that application should succeed, sentencing can proceed without delay. If, on the other hand, the Station fails and the for a new trial stands, then sentencing will be deferred until a date to be fixed after the trial has been held.” His Honour said later the order for a new trial would stand and sentencing was deferred.